Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2013/April

WikiRecipe
Thought you would want to know, Sfan00 IMG (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposal although similar ones have been made over the year and no new projects have been approved for a long time (except Wikivoyage but that's a different situation). I would support this if the majority of content came from Wikibooks Cookbook and if the wiki software was improved to allow for easier to edit and better-looking pages so it could compete with the various commercial recipe websites which are out there.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 13:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the process should have started here on Wikibooks since it is something that already exists on Wikimedia as the Cookbook (as you say), the fact that the Cookbook exist should end the Meta discussion. The wrong way would be to change the Cookbook because of a discussion that happened on Meta.
 * I would only support it if the Cookbook community (those active in the namespace) saw any valid issue that would be resolved if it were an independent project.
 * I do not see a need to make it a separated project, beyond the shared subject (that the specific namespace covers, like Wikijunior, that would have more grounds to be an independent project in my view), the editorial and licensing issues are mostly the same as the rest of the other Wikibooks' projects. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a Cookbook community. Maybe fewer than 5 edits per day and most of those from IP editors.  Doesn't really show much enthusiasm for a separate project so maybe it is better of remaining a part of Wikibooks.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 18:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That would also be my conclusion... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Saylor.org's Cell Biology
The title is a tad problematic to me; seems to imply book ownership. We already have a Cell Biology book, though. How about moving it to cytology? Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree there's something problematic about embedding the name of a web site into the title. Too bad "Cell Biology" is taken; that would of course be the most obvious alternative.


 * Have you informed people at the book itself of this thread, by leaving a note on the book's main talk page? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are lots of these Saylor.org books. The reason for the name is the same as "IB Chemistry" or "A-level Mathematics"; they reflect the name of the course that the book supports. This isn't about ownership IMO QU TalkQu 11:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it comes across that way and thereby discourages contributors, that would be a problem, though. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem for me. The organization's website, the Wikibook pages and the user pages of some of the main contributers emphasize that they welcome edits from everybody.  Every book needs a name.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 19:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That isn't the only book. How about Saylor Foundation , Saylor , or SF ? I think the text at the top of every book is more of an issue though as it is self-promotional. --dark lama  21:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, eliminating the genitive takes care of the ownership titles. I support Saylor  or Saylor Foundation , but SF  might be a bit confusing. Kayau (talk · contribs) 01:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Restricting edits in a book
Page Professionalism/Larry Gibson and Mountaintop Removal is asking for non-students not to edit the page until after May 2013. Is this permitted Wikibooks policy?--ЗAНИA talk 10:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking yes, enforcing a block no. Since the timeframe is ended the request can and should be removed...
 * I've fixed the template since it was used with the seemingly intention of stating 2013 (even if it stated 2012). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no issue in formulating a request not to do something on a work, if one is working on it or has declared intentions to do so (these are obvious limitations to make the request reasonable), there are even processes to formalize a more drastic block, we support local project policies in the form of conventions and anyone is free to propose and shape community wide policies and guidelines. Our decision process is predicated in the possibility of a block, that it requires consensus (non-opposition). But as exemplified several times in the C++ Programming project the respect for a reasonable (even if I'm partial) block (opposition) depends on a reasonable and equal footing (in capability) with the proponent of the changes. If not respected it defaults to an edit conflict, here on Wikibooks those are resolved by politicking and subversion. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Norton added the same request to many pages in that book in 2012. While possible someone intends to have students working on it again this year, might also be possible someone simply added that template because it is on all the other pages and nobody has removed it from pages since the class ended in May 2012. Edits had ceased in May 2012 on the pages I looked at. --dark lama  15:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikibooks has no policies specific to class projects. Guidelines for class projects has become an informal page meant to help teachers understand some issues they might encounter in using Wikibooks for class projects, which does mention that people might contribute large changes in good faith, and that such edits should not be deleted or reverted. Maybe as an alternative to asking people not to edit, a template could be developed for teachers to use which indicates a book is part of a class project, maybe with an until date parameter. --dark lama  16:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have typically added an edit group notice to class books that both asks other editors to consider not making large changes but also informs the students about copyright, etc. I think an informal request is fine; Wikibooks has very few books that aren't developed by a single author and most new authors come here to write their own book. I don't think staying away from class projects is a big deal for anyone QU TalkQu 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is harder on reviewers than will often find incorrect or incomplete information being added to those projects. I have dealt with it by talking to the "community leader" (teacher) and using the talk pages for annotations. It is not perfect, in fact I have chosen to avoid reviewing progressing works that I do not actively participate, class projects would fall into that category. It is not like there is lack of things needing doing...
 * As you say with consideration and dialog there shouldn't be a problem if all keep in mind the benefits in having more free content available and hopefully experts in the subjects reviewing it. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently some templates have been made in the past and been categorized in Category:Class project templates. Maybe this category should be mentioned on the guideline page for the benefit of teachers --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be totally against the spirit of everything Wikibooks is for. We should be telling these organizations that if they want to create a project that only their students or members can contribute to then they should find another website. Any notices asking other editors to refrain from editing should be removed. We appear to have no policy for Class projects so they are subject to the same rules as any other book. Maybe class projects should be moved to another namespace of Wikibooks (ala Cookbook and Wikijunior)?--ЗAНИA talk 19:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I meant I doubt anyone would want to edit a class project that was in progress but obviously they can if they so desire and I would intervene to allow them to do so if the class participants tried to stop them or revert their edits. However, I didn't see the "please consider..." request as a big deal as long as it was time limited in the same way as an "under construction" might be used. Wikipedia has an "education programme" that allows what you are suggesting. We could adopt it here. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 22:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a navigation template manifesting twice
This, and three of the next four pages show two manifestations of Template:chapter navigation. I'm about four or five years stale on remembering how to track this sort of thing down and fix it. I made a succession of attempts here. Nothing works. I suspect an expansion collision with the way .css builds the category at page end. Can someone flag this to the attention of a template guru her who can advise me about how to go forward?

Thanks, best regards //Fra nkB 05:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * should be used only once on a page and at the bottom of the page. It includes both the top and bottom navigations with no need to include it in both places. I'm not sure how the documentation on the template itself could be made clearer about this as it says to use only once at the bottom of the page. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  10:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, must have missed that caveat... my eyes don't see on bright backgrounds at all well, which is why I've mostly left off browsing the web and even editing in the Wikimedia's wiki-world back in 2009, except for the occasional itch I have to scratch when something just needs fixed up. A quick look is fine, but long intervals&mdash;the eye strain and headaches aren't worth it for any extended period. Ironically, or perhaps per the Hand of God, when I left off web activity I found refuge in offline building of model railroads in Trainz, where the soothing green landscapes,forested hills, and dark greys and various browns of road cuts and other cliffs gave relief from the brightness sensitivity. Interesting circle here, some would claim a manifestation of Gods will! (Not me, I'm just amused.)


 * The Trainz book is one such thing, it is badly in need of TLC, and focused on pre-TRS2009 Trainz tech for the most part. Clearly the writers were inexperienced in wiki markup! In any event it's placement sounded optional, iirc. In any event if it's manifesting both places already I'll be glad to update the book with a smaller edit! Thanks for the speedy result.

Ahhhh Ha! <g>
 * "1. links to the previous and next pages of the book to the top of the page (position depends on stylesheet)" is highly suggestive of putting it in both places, so delineate by a prelude: "The template should only be used once on a page and may be placed at the top or bottom. Which placement is used depends on the projects stylesheet:" and then modify the excerpted line 1 to read instead: 1. links to the previous and next pages of the book only. I'll do that template edit, if I can, and if you'd prefer something else, fix it up with no hard feelings. Check me on this fix, it's done if I understand it all.

Best regards, and again, my heartfelt thanks // Fra nkB 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Score extension available for your use
As of yesterday (Monday 22 April), the Score MediaWiki extension is available for your use on Wikibooks where you need it. For examples of how to use it, see the extension page or some of these help pages on English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia.

Greg (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Internal links
I'm having trouble getting internal links in my book to work properly. Can anyone help?

Thanks.


 * In the Historical_Geology book? Links look OK to me.  Obviously the blue links are working fine.  The red links may need to be changed to point at anchors on the same page rather than separate pages.  For example change Historical_Geology/Glossary_and_index/Milankovitch_cycles to Historical_Geology/Glossary_and_index with a # rather than a / .  Hope I've understood your problem correctly.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 19:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the question might be about page to page navigation. For example navigating from /Page1/ to /Page2/ with a relative link.


 * This example from Wikipedia might help:

Given the seven page names Fullpagename/A/B/C plus Fullpagename/S/T/V: Linking to a section heading or anchor also works. The syntax is.
 * See w:Help:Link for more info


 * For example, to link from /Page 1/ to /Page 2/ that at the same level in the page hierarchy (so are siblings) the code is ../Page 2/ QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. It was the .. that I needed, to indicate that I was trying to link to a sister page rather than a daughter page. Though in that case I don't see why I haven't had more problems than I already have. Why do my internal links to the glossary work?

Still, so long as it works, all is well. I hope you like the book.

Actualist (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good looking book, yes. Your glossary links work because you have used the full path Historical Geology/Glossary and index. You can replace them if you want with atoms or leave them as is. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on inactive administrators
(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians. Please also consider translating the proposal.)

Read this message in English / Lleer esti mensaxe n'asturianu / বাংলায় এই বার্তাটি পড়ুন / Llegiu aquest missatge en català / Læs denne besked på dansk / Lies diese Nachricht auf Deutsch / Leś cal mesag' chè in Emiliàn / Leer este mensaje en español / Lue tämä viesti suomeksi / Lire ce message en français / Ler esta mensaxe en galego / हिन्दी / Pročitajte ovu poruku na hrvatskom / Baca pesan ini dalam Bahasa Indonesia / Leggi questo messaggio in italiano / ಈ ಸಂದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿ / Aqra dan il-messaġġ bil-Malti / norsk (bokmål) / Lees dit bericht in het Nederlands / Przeczytaj tę wiadomość po polsku / Citiți acest mesaj în română / Прочитать это сообщение на русском / Farriintaan ku aqri Af-Soomaali / Pročitaj ovu poruku na srpskom (Прочитај ову поруку на српском) / อ่านข้อความนี้ในภาษาไทย / Прочитати це повідомлення українською мовою / Đọc thông báo bằng tiếng Việt / 使用中文阅读本信息.

Hello!

There is a new request for comment on Meta-Wiki concerning the removal of administrative rights from long-term inactive Wikimedians. Generally, this proposal from stewards would apply to wikis without an administrators' review process.

We are also compiling a list of projects with procedures for removing inactive administrators on the talk page of the request for comment. Feel free to add your project(s) to the list if you have a policy on administrator inactivity.

All input is appreciated. The discussion may close as soon as 21 May 2013 (2013-05-21), but this will be extended if needed.

Thanks, Billinghurst (thanks to all the translators!) 04:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Distributed via Global message delivery (Wrong page? You can fix it.)


 * My suspicion is that this is, perhaps through proxies (or patsies), a move by the close-everything-but-Wikipedia contingent, looking to hone a tool with which to kill off the smallest sisters first and thereby weaken the stronger ones by depriving them of allies. That this strategy would eventually leave Wikipedia itself with no allies, would not be credited by the Wikipedia-only crowd, while it would be an attraction to those would would like to see Wikipedia fall too.


 * In theory, one might suppose that en.wb and en.wn should not be subject to this since we both have policies in place concerning de-admin for inactivity &mdash; but I don't trust that theory at all. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not the intent. The proposal is that where an account with advanced rights is dormant (no log, no edit) for 2 years and there is no inactivity or de-adminship policy on the project, then the Stewards will provide the relevant community with a notification of the inactive accounts. If the community wishes the dormant account to retain its rights, or the individual says they want to, then no action will be taken. In effect it is creating an inactivity confirmation process for any project that doesn't have one already. There are 'crats out there on projects where they are the only 'crat and have been inactive on all projects since 2006. The account is vulnerable to hacking, and if the individual returned they would be so out of touch they ought to really re-request the rights. We are outside the scope of this proposal as we have a de-adminship policy QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As has already been mentioned, we're outside of the scope of this new idea from up above although, being a suspicious fellow, I would tend to agree with Pi Zero's theories. I'm generally not comfortable with the idea of global sys-ops.  Anyway, moot point.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 22:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with Global sysops? PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a rough estimate, 25% of the anti-vandalism work here is done by Global Sysops. There are times when there are no local admins around (really there's only five of us who are active) and the Global Sysops are invaluable in stopping this project collapsing into a spam farm. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

[en] Change to wiki account system and account renaming
Some accounts will soon be renamed due to a technical change that the developer team at Wikimedia are making. More details on Meta.

(Distributed via global message delivery 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)